< September 15	September 17 >

September 16

Template:WikiProject Arabic names

Template:WikiProject Arabic names (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiProject Anthroponymy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Arabic names with Template:WikiProject Anthroponymy.
WikiProject banner for a task force. Should be merged with main project banner to avoid unnecessary duplication. No changes in categorization, but easier maintenance in the future, less clutter and better interactions with auto assessment tools. --Trialpears (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The Arabic names banner is pretty basic so this would be a simple task. PC78 (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs

Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiProject Palaeontology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs with Template:WikiProject Palaeontology.
WikiProject banner for a task force. Should be merged with main project banner to avoid unnecessary duplication. No changes in categorization, but easier maintenance in the future, less clutter and better interactions with auto assessment tools. --Trialpears (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Looks like the main banner already supports the task force anyway. PC78 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sure what is meant by easier management. We already have two Tree of Life WPs that are too large for some maintenance tasks to run. If ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) were removed, then each affected article would have to be tagged with both ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) and ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles)), increasing the amount of clutter. Right now, only ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) is required. If we really wanted to streamline things, removing the legacy TF parameters from ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) and updating affected pages would be the better option. --Nessie (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @NessieVL: I'm afraid I don't understand the nature of your complaint, nor where ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles)) comes into it. All ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) does is feed Category:Pterosaurs task force articles (and subcategories therof), a task which ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) can do just as well on its own. Many pages appear to have all three banners (Talk:Eudimorphodon, Talk:Nyctosaurus, etc.), not one as you suggest. PC78 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @PC78: Just because some banners are misapplied, does not mean everything must be wiped away. All pterosaur articles are both reptiles and paleotaxa. These articles should either use only ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) (preferred), or both ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) and ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles)). The latter is more clutter and more duplication, the former is cleaner and easier to parse for maintenance tasks.
  - Also, a taskforce or subproject is allowed to be listed as a taskforce or hook of a parent project. WPBats and WPPrimates are both listed as hooks in ((WikiProject Mammals)), despite having separate banners. WPMCB was a TF under the ((WikiProject Fungi)) banner until recently, despite not actually being a TF nor subproject. The hooks make it easier for casual editors to put articles in the relevant wikiprojects by giving them multiple options. The AFC approval tools do not suggest them, which is why having both options is preferred for smaller projects.
  - And let's not forget that this project is not defunct or anything, so not sure why we need to start consolidating everything now. --Nessie (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still don't entirely follow. If a page only uses ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) then it will only feed into categories for that task force. If categorisation for the two parent projects is necessary then you will need to use those banners as well. You assert that only the Pterosaur banner is necessary on those pages; if that's true, then merging it into ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) will be of no detriment to WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. PC78 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, let's use another example. Say we are placing WP banners on the talk page for Elasmosaurus. It would get ((WikiProject Palaeontology)), ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles)), and ((WikiProject Marine life)). Conversely, Giant squid only needs ((WikiProject Cephalopods)). It does not need ((WikiProject Marine life)), as that would be redundant. All cephalopods are marine. Likewise, you don't need to tag Bonobo under both ((WikiProject Primates)) and ((WikiProject Mammals)) (nor even ((WikiProject Mammals|primates=yes))). You only use the first one, ((WikiProject Primates)). We don't need turtles all the way down. --Nessie (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        That logic runs counter to every other WikiProject I've encountered, and I don't see any evidence for it at either WikiProject Marine life or WikiProject Cephalopods (and just to note, Giant squid does in fact have both banners which seems to undermine your argument). To use an example that I'm more familiar with, WP:FILMBIO is a subproject of WP:BIOGRAPHY and instead of having a separate template it has a parameter in ((WikiProject Biography)); any article about an actor or filmmaker is therefore categorised for both projects because it is relevant to both, the two do not somehow become mutually exclusive of each other. By the same token, Giant squid is relevant to both WP Cephalopods and WP Marine life but it currently requires two templates to achieve the same result, which if anything makes it look like another merge candidate. PC78 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Welcome to the Tree of Life WikiProjects then. Under your logic, Firefly should be not just in ((WikiProject Beetles)), but also ((WikiProject Insects)), ((WikiProject Arthropods)), ((WikiProject Animals)), ((WikiProject Tree of Life)), and ((WikiProject Biology)). --Nessie (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Then lets wind this back to start: if the Pterosaur banner is removed from Talk:Pterodactylus and replaced with a parameter in the other banner, it will have no impact. If the Marine biology is not needed now, it will not be needed after a merge. The existence of a standalone banner for Pteroaurs is neither here nor there. PC78 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, back at the start I said "If ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) were removed, then each affected article would have to be tagged with both ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) and ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles))...." Pterosaurs are not marine, they are reptiles. Not all paleontological articles relate to herpetology. I think you are not understanding the consensus of how these are used in taxa articles. --Nessie (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I've just got my wires crossed; clearly I meant Amphibians and Reptiles and not Marine biology. I think it's you who doesn't fully understand how WikiProject banners work. We aren't proposing to get rid of the Pterosaur task force, merely the banner, and if the task force falls under WP Amphibians and Reptiles by default then that won't magically change if we merge the banner into WP Palaeontology. Are there any Pterosaur articles that wouldn't fall under Palaeontology? If not then I can't see any need or justification for keeping it. Whatever impact you think this has on WP Amphibians and Reptiles seems entirley imagined on your part. I think I'm going to let this rest because it doesn't feel like either of us are getting anywhere. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        There aren't any primate articles that wouldn't fall under mammals, so should ((WikiProject Primates)) be merged as well? Just because a project or task force is a subset of another, that's not grounds for deletion. Should I put a hook in ((WikiProject Anthropology)) to add articles to WP:Biography, and then propose ((WikiProject Biography)) for a merge with ((WikiProject Anthropology))? That is what all the Support votes mention. It all sounds like WP:IDLI and/or an end-run attempt to chip away at the pterosaurs TF. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 19#Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force. --Nessie (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it would seem the pterosaur task force is already incorporated in the paleo template for the relevant articles? See for example the talk page of Pteranodon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It would still need a bit of work to incorporate the separate importance ratings and requested image categorisation, but that's an easy enough task. PC78 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @PC78 and FunkMonk: are you volunteering to do all that? --Nessie (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The changes I refered to are fairly trivial, I'd be happy to do them. PC78 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a bot could do it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to do it and have made some regex that had 0 false positives when converting the 500 uses WikiProject Patna. --Trialpears (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main benefit this merger would entail would be making sure that all Pterosaurs are tagged with ((WP Palaeontology)) and whether this is desirable is entirely up to the wikiproject, which it has been for all task forces I've seen. If this isn't desirable then I will of course change my mind. For the bats tf example there were some major differences with major arguments being percieved technical problems and unnecessary work, neither of these are problems here. Ultimately though the choice is up to the WikiProject and if NessieVL is still opposed to the change I think it shouldn't be in any way forced by outsiders that have never contributed to any pterosaurus articles. --Trialpears (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This all still seems very backwards. Shouldn't this first have consensus at WPPaleo/AAR to revoke the semi-autonomy of Pterosaurs? That's what happened at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. Plus I still don't know what harm the template is causing. Again, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 19#Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force.

Template:WikiProject Oregon government

Template:WikiProject Oregon government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiProject Oregon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Oregon government with Template:WikiProject Oregon.
Should be merged as a parameter to the main template to avoid unnecessary duplication. No changes in functionality, but easier maintenance in the future, less clutter and better interactions with auto assessment tools. --Trialpears (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Looks like the main banner already supports the task force anyway. PC78 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bury F.C. squad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bury F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template. No reason to keep this now that the club does not have any players. Can be recreated when Bury know what league they'll join JMHamo (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no players, so no need for a 'current' squad template. Giant Snowman 19:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and chances are that if Bury resume play next season it will probably wind up being at quite a low level and chances are they will have very few bluelinked players and may not justify the template being re-created (but that is mainly speculation on my part) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Quran aya

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quran aya (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused non-English template — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused & unusable. Cabayi (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, useless. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quran Surah

Template:Quran Surah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused non-English template — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused & unusable collection of arabic redlinks. Cabayi (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bug

Template:Bug (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bugzilla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated template linking to bugzilla, now migrated to phabricator. All transclusions should be replaced with ((phab)). --Trialpears (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ((Bug)) seems not broken to me. ((bug|45221)) links to a different report (Template:Bug) than ((phab|45221)) (T45221), so if you simply replace "bug" with "phab" you will break old links to old bugs, and force the otherwise unnecessary task of fixing them. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wbm1058 Fixing them is actually super easyl since the corresponding phabricator ID is always the bugzilla ID + 2000 (Template:Bug vs T47221). This can be changed in the template and then automatically substituted by AnomieBOT. The merger would be done in under an hour. There is always a risk that the bugzilla redirects will stop working and this would easily avoid dead links if that ever were to happen. --Trialpears (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 857 transclusions of ((bug)) and 134 transclusions of ((Bugzilla)). If fixing this requires editing all of them, that would be some high-speed editing to knock them all off in under an hour. However, I find the ‹The template Bug is being considered for deletion.› message sufficiently annoying that I've updated my user page to use ((phab)). If this can be done as smoothly as claimed, don't let me stand in the way. I suppose the first step in transitioning, to mitigate the risk that the bugzilla redirects will stop working, is to modify the template to add 2000 and then call ((phab)) (essentially change where the redirects are happening to a place we can control). Template:Bug/sandbox was created in November 2014 by an editor who retired four years ago, and Template:Bugzilla/sandbox has yet to be created. I don't see ((Bug/sandbox)) using the "add 2000 trick". Also noting Template talk:Bug, apparently Phabricator does not support the comment links. Also, ((bug)) supports |comment= and |label= parameters, and support for |label= at least should be added to ((phab)). See Template talk:Phab for that request. The proposed transitioning templates should be in these sandboxes, for review here. wbm1058 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will make sure all that is done before they're replaced. Doing work while the template is in the holding cell is quite standard, but I should be able to update ((phab)) later tonight to accomodate for the merger. --Trialpears (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot about updating here, but I made a merged version in the sandbox the same day as I would. --Trialpears (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both after replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bugzilla is no longer a thing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ali Jones

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ali Jones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I recently moved this template to Template:St. Lunatics because I felt the individual did not have enough notable releases to justify having a navigational template while I felt the group did. I was going to start a WP:RM for this after I was reverted, but I am not sure the group has enough notable releases to justify having a navigational template and the best course of action would be to delete the template. Ali Jones has two releases: an album and a song that redirects back to the album, so he has one notable release. Even with the groups he was a part of, Ali & Gipp and St. Lunatics, there are not enough links to having the navigational template. Group releases should and are not included in other navigational template because they are not the individual's releases. Aspects (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This navigation box contains many useful links. If the navbox can not be kept, it should be repurposed to "Template:Ali & Gipp" or "Template:St. Lunatics". --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough solo releases, collaborative releases are better suited for other templates. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep, appears to be in-use on nine articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough links to justify a navbox. --Trialpears (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dinah Jane

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 October 2. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dinah_Jane (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ItalyDecade

Template:ItalyDecade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to the generic Template:Decade in country category.

I have replaced all uses of this template with ((Decade in country category|Italy|Europe)), so the template is now unused. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A appropriate consolidation. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]